On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 05:42:29AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 08/13/2013 09:27 PM, Till Maas wrote: > > >My suggestion would be: > > > >- Packages must have a URL tag > >- If possible, the URL should be valid > >- If the package is completely created by Fedora, use > >https://fedoraproject.org > >- If there is no upstream web page, use the Source URL, or, if the web > > server allows directory listings, specify the directory of the Source > > URL > >- If the original URL does not work, try an archive.org one and add a > > comment to the SPEC explaining when it was noticed that the URL does > > not work > >- If archive.org does not work, use the last known URL and add a comment > > > >An additional hack would be to add an achor tag to URLs that are known > >to not work anymore, such as the following: > > > >"http://example.com/#Fedora:+does+not+work,+no+new+URL+known"; > > -1 > > I don't see how the effect would be different from not having an URL > tag, except that your proposal causes more bureaucracy. If I do "rpm -qi foo" on a package which this kind of URL it is directly clear where the package came from and that it is not necessary to file a bug about a bad URL. If the URL is missing, one would need to checkout the SPEC and see which Sources are used and maybe file a bug report or if the URL is there but broken, one might file an unnecessary bug report. Therefore not having a URL tag leads to more work than just adjusting the URL tag. Regards Till -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
